9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Appeal u/s 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenging penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for Assessment Year 1995-96.
Summary: The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal imposing a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 1995-96. The Assessing Officer had initiated penalty proceedings and imposed a penalty on the Assessee, which was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). However, the Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal, stating that the AO had not recorded satisfaction regarding concealment of facts or furnishing inaccurate particulars by the Assessee, citing relevant case law. The decision of the Court in Ram Commercial Enterprises Limited, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in subsequent cases, was pivotal in this matter. The Revenue argued that another substantial question of law raised in a different case should be considered by a larger Bench. The argument was that satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings need not be expressly indicated in the assessment order, but should be discernible from it. However, the Court decided to examine the assessment order in the present case to determine if the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer was discernible. Upon examination, the Court found that there was no recorded satisfaction by the AO in the assessment order regarding the initiation of penalty proceedings. The Court noted that the issue was more about the interpretation of information provided by the Assessee rather than concealment of particulars. Consequently, the Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose in the appeal and dismissed it. In conclusion, the Court's decision was based on the lack of discernible satisfaction by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order, leading to the dismissal of the appeal challenging the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for the Assessment Year 1995-96.
|
